ALLENTOWN, Pa.-The new movie "Promised Land" digs into the fierce national debate over fracking, the technique that's generated a boom in U.S. natural gas production while also stoking controversy over its possible impact on the environment and human health.

Written by and starring Matt Damon and John Krasinski, the film comes at an opportune time for a big-screen exploration of the issues surrounding the shale gas revolution, with cheap natural gas transforming the nation's energy landscape and "fracking" now a household word.

But viewers shouldn't necessarily expect a realistic treatment of drilling and fracking. It's not that kind of film...

EDITOR'S NOTE - The author, Michael Rubinkam, covers the fracking industry in Pennsylvania for The Associated Press. With "Promised Land" opening nationwide on Friday, he offers this view from the ground.

Environmentalists, meantime, are positively giddy over the film's depiction of an industry they view as dangerous to land, water, air and people. They are planning their own campaign around "Promised Land," including the distribution of anti-drilling leaflets, postcards and petitions to audiences leaving theaters.

For those who have been unemployed, those communities in the rust belt whose tax base has been devastated, and the old and new companies servicing the industry, the gas boom has provided hope of a revitalized economy. For environmentalists, its the same old story -- fossil fuels should be abandoned in favor of solar and wind. Their stirring up NIMBY sentiments only goes so far as putting food on the table and being able to afford rent, a new car or TV will trump the apocalyptic rantings of the ecoNazis. Let them freeze in the dark while the rest of us safely enjoy God-given resources.

7
posted on 01/03/2013 10:22:44 AM PST
by CedarDave
(Matt Damon is to natural gas fracking as Jane Fonda is to nuclear power generation.)

I always think there is an incredible amount of arrogance when these folks speak on matters they are not trained in. You never hear these guys refer to someone like this guy, http://www.ou.edu/engineering/peteng/dept/roegiers.html, a really well respected professor in rock mechanics. Why? Because they don’t need to. They don’t need any kind of training in engineering, much less the more specialized mechanics of rocks and hydraulic fracturing, because they are cool like that. It is an incredible disrespect of the science, and the accomplishment of the men and women who work in that area, to spout off that such science and engineering should be scrapped when, which might effect people’s livelihood, and availability of cheaper energy resources, when they don’t have a clue what they are talking about, mostly because they don’t know anything about the science. Like Rush says, they do it because it makes them feel good, not because it is accurate or truthful. “Look at me, I made an anti-fracking movie, I care about the Earth more than most people, what a saint I am.” Just saying, there is a lot of self-centeredness to their motivation.

I may be wrong because of the tremendous P.R. campaign for this movie, but I have a feeling the drama of a landman getting farmers to sign gas leases isn’t exactly gonna pack ‘em in. I have a feeling this is another Hollywood agenda movie that will land with a thud.

One question about ‘Fracking’ that *is* bothering me, leftist talking point or not- is it true that the companies doing fracking are keeping the actual chemical make up of the stuff they inject along with the steam a ‘trade secret’?

I mean I'm far from an envirowhacko, being a Silverado drivin’, wood burning Harley rider, but the idea of somebody injecting into the ground below my (and my water supply) and not telling anyone what it is is... disturbing. Trade secretes my have their place, but with food or medecine, we have a choice of we don't want to use the product containing it, with drilling not so much.

As with nuclear power, a good thing overall, but there should be strict liability with no time limit for anything going wrong, I don't know if a mere 50 or 60 year track record is good enough for a process that could conceivably render an area uninhabitable in 100 year's time.... Don't really know, not my area of expertise....

One question about ‘Fracking’ that *is* bothering me, leftist talking point or not- is it true that the companies doing fracking are keeping the actual chemical make up of the stuff they inject along with the steam a ‘trade secret’?

I mean I'm far from an envirowhacko, being a Silverado drivin’, wood burning Harley rider, but the idea of somebody injecting into the ground below my (and my water supply) and not telling anyone what it is is... disturbing. Trade secretes my have their place, but with food or medecine, we have a choice of we don't want to use the product containing it, with drilling not so much.

As with nuclear power, a good thing overall, but there should be strict liability with no time limit for anything going wrong, I don't know if a mere 50 or 60 year track record is good enough for a process that could conceivably render an area uninhabitable in 100 year's time.... Don't really know, not my area of expertise....

is it true that the companies doing fracking are keeping the actual chemical make up of the stuff they inject along with the steam a trade secret?

All companies, at all location, are required to have on site the MSDS for every chemical being used on site. So in every location, there is access to what chemicals are being used, but not the exact amounts.

Some states, like Texas, have required that companies have a public online database where individuals can access what chemicals are being used for hydraulic fracturing.

That disclosure must be made at a web site the industry had already started where multiple companies at many different locations had already started listing those chemical to put the public more at ease.

At Fracfocus.org, you can look up individual wells just by a geographic map. However, it is not yet used by everyone and is still a growing database.

Other major companies that actually perform the hydraulic fracturing (not the oil company, but the company hired for that stage of the well completion) have started their own online database for people to search. For example, you can search what Haliburton has used in some different areas.

I don't know if a mere 50 or 60 year track record is good enough for a process that could conceivably render an area uninhabitable in 100 year's time....

100 year time??? Do you understand that after a well is hydraulic fractured, that fluid removed so the well can now flow out the cracks made during fracturing? Not every drop will initially come out, but nearly all does. However, the flowing gas/oil is pushing that remaining hydraulic fluid back up the well. It isn't going to stay down there. The pressure of the reservoir is pushing that fluid back out. It is not going to stay down there and spread out; there field pressures are pushing it the other direction.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.